Re: telco today at 15:00

Hi Gil, Jorge,

Thanks for the comment, we have discussed it in the telco. The decision
that is proposed is to have two properties

   - *language* whose value must be a two-letter ISO 639-1 code or a
   three-letter ISO 639-3 code (ISO 639-2 is not supported to avoid ambiguity
   - *languageURI* whose value should refer to an RDF language resource,
   for example the Library of Congress identifier or (better) the LexVo
   identifier

The second property is better from a semantic point of view (as we can use
the extra information given by LexVo) and allows us to refer definitions
for languages that don't have an ISO code (e.g., Dothraki, Jèrriais)

Are there any objections to this scheme?

Regards,
John


On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> Hi Philipp,
>
> Let me add another issue for the first part
>
> 1.6) In ontolex:language, Is it better to have a URI as range instead of a
> String? See DCAT for instance
> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:catalog_language
>
> Regards,
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
> 2014-06-06 8:59 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> >:
>
> Dear all,
>>
>>  we have  a few things to discuss today, I would propose splitting the
>> slot in two parts:
>>
>> 1) Discussion about ontolex changes (30 mins, with decisions on the
>> single points)
>>
>>    1.1) Introducing Lexicalization into the core model (decision)
>>    1.2) Naming the property between a "Lexical Sense" and a "Lexical
>> Concept"; contains was not regarded as appropriate by many, so proposals on
>> the table are: realizes/isRealizedBy, lexicalizes/isLexicalizedBy,
>> instantiates/isInstantiatedBy, substantiates/isSubstantiatedBy,
>> means/isMeaningOf as well as expresses/isExpressedBy; I am fine with at
>> least 3 of them ;-)
>>    1.3) Discussion: renaming property lexicalForm to simply "form"
>>    1.4) Discussion: introducing property "definition" as a subclass of
>> rdfs:comment with domain ontolex:LexicalSense
>>    1.5) Discussion: explicitly introducing the class "Reference" as the
>> range of "reference" as we have it anyway in most our diagrams; has no
>> practical neither theoretical implications other than clarity (IMHO) and
>> increasing the size of the module by one class
>>
>> 2) Discussion on lime proposal sent by Manuel/Armando (this assumes that
>> Armando will be there to walk us through) -> 30 mins. (no decision)
>>
>> Btw: I finally managed to find a nice tool to produce UML-style
>> visualizations of our models. It is called draw.io ;-) I attach a
>> diagram that reflects the current state of the ontolex module. The diagram
>> is in the GIT repo as well (where cardinalities are not indicated they are
>> 0..n).
>>
>> I propose to postpone the discussion about Translation for another
>> occasion. I need to make up my mind myself there. I will send a separate
>> email on this.
>>
>> Access details can be found here as usual: https://www.w3.org/community/
>> ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.06.06,_15-16_pm_CET
>>
>> Talk to you later!
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>>
>> Phone: +49 521 106 12249
>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412
>> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>
>> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
>> Raum 2.307
>> Universität Bielefeld
>> Inspiration 1
>> 33619 Bielefeld
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jorge Gracia, PhD
> Ontology Engineering Group
> Artificial Intelligence Department
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
> http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/
>